On 5 Jan 2011 at 0:17, Jim Clark wrote: > 1. Although not clear from the article, presumably much of the research is > nonexperimental in nature. One > should be cautious about causal conclusions whether results are positive > (benefits of pets) or negative (no > benefits of pets). Not hard to imagine, for example, that people who acquire > pets might be less well off if > they had not done so, because of some selection bias.
> 2. As one comment noted, randomly assigning pets to some people is hardly the > prototypical way that pets > come into people's lives, raising questions about the generalizability of the > results to more natural > acquisition of pets. Random assignment, however, would be more > characteristic of "therapeutic" use of pets. I'd like to follow Scott Lilienfeld's two-category typology of myths with a two-category typology of claims about the value of owning pets. One claim is that pets are good for people who like pets. Likely no myth there. Those who like to watch foreign films and do, undoubtedly find the activity rewarding; ditto for those who like broccoli and eat it. This is practically a tautology. The more significant claim is whether pets are good for people, like them or not. That's like saying "I know you hate broccoli, but it's good for you, so you'd better eat it". "I know you hate doing crossword puzzles, but they stave off Alzheimer's, so you'd better do them". The first claim requires no more than correlational research. Check out people who have pets. Are they happy about having them? You bet, in most cases. Case closed. But the second claim requires random assortment of pets to people. That's not easy to do, and so rarely done. And that's where the evidence is murky. Yet, as the reader comments following the article I flagged show, people believe passionately that pets are good for people, mostly because they're good for them. That's what I call a myth: an unsupported yet widely-accepted belief (an epistemic myth, in Scott's terminology). Now for the anecdote which of course you should immediately ignore. My daughter likes cats. She just got one for her small apartment. Notable results: 1) She is sleep-deprived, because the cat, being nocturnal, keeps her awake at night 2) She is stressed out when she has to travel, because she first has to ensure that someone will take care of her cat 3) Have you checked out the cost of kitty litter lately? 4) And we won't mention the risk of diseases such as toxoplasmosis, allergies, ebola, halitosis, and hairballs (men only). But she loves her cat. Me, I like dogs (but I don't have one). Stephen -------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca --------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7680 or send a blank email to leave-7680-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
